Is Gannett really that bad?

you think that's bad? the night before i started my current job, i slept.

 

An excellent compare and contrast, pitting Gannett and all its warts against Singleton and all its herpes sores.

http://www.oberjuerge.com/?p=163#more-163

 

Don't let these guys scare you off man.
If you perceive it to be a better job - take it.
I joined a Gannett paper more than a year ago and have had NO PROBLEMS at all.

Of course, by writing that I probably just jinxed it. Oh well.

 

Having worked for both Singleton and Gannett, they both have their good points. Gannett is managed to the point that you spend more time establishing a paper trail than you do actually writing a story. It's all process and regimentation. Singleton will give you the freedom to do your own thing, perhaps something really good, provided you do all of your other stuff first and don't expect OT.

 

I work for a singleton paper right now.

As the above poster said, I have great freedom to do my thing.

And there's absolutely no overtime involved.

 

Gannett is, bar none, the absolute worst owner of any shop I've ever had the misfortune to work at, and I've been at places that essentially work you 55 hours and pay you only for 40 or 44, and a place where the publisher wouldn't allow a logo of the local minor-league team to run in color because he didn't like baseball, which was a problem because that team was our only beat during the summer.

All the above comments about Gannett's micromanagement were true at each stop I was at. It felt more like working in a government office with all the red tape and the meetings and the paper trail than any sort of writing job. At least when you're writing, you get out of the office and take a breath of non-Gannett air. You have to follow rules that make no sense, but you don't have someone walking by every hour or so to slap your wrists if you haven't met regulations to the letter. If you're working the desk, it's Soviet Russian oppressiveness combined with all the cheeriness and effeciency of the DMV.

That said, Gannett does pay decently enough; you'll just be miserable as a journalist. I'd say your decision depends on how much you love journalism vs. how bad you need some extra cash. Personally, I vowed a long time ago to never again work for them, and I've yet to hear from anyone I know in the chain to persuade me otherwise.

 

Mt GNS days were done 11 years ago. The spirit of the staff was sucked out by understaffing, micromanaging, absurd regulations and incompetence by the suits. It was OK for the city editor to show up drunk for work day after day, but it wasn't OK to ask for a character reference. It was OK for the sports editor to openly root for a school his wife attended, but it wasn't OK to apply for 30 seconds of overtime. Fuck 'em. Work shouldn't make anyone feel the way that staff did.

 

What do you mean by spending so much time establishing a paper trail, and doing that more than writing?. Especially if you're reporter, how does that figure?

It's part of the micromanagement? You can only pitch story ideas in writing? Editor comes back at you and tells you to send him/her every projected interview question? He/she gives the go-ahead, or not, for them, and for the angles and formats of the stories, and you can never deviate? You must email them every step of the way while you're out in the field?

I mean, what kind of paper trail has to be established? And how far along the chain of command does it need to go, and is it ever used against you? Is that the point of it?

I'm just curious and wondering.

 

Without knowing a bit more about your paper, it's hard to say. Also, you wondered whether a paper with twice the circulation would mean a pay raise. Not necessarily: Like all newspaper publishers, Gannett is now aggressively cutting costs -- including what it pays new hires. Why not contact the paper, go through the application process, and learn more. You can read more on this subject on my recent Gannett Blog post here: http://tinyurl.com/6dlp63

Jim Hopkins
Editor,
Gannett Blog

 

I still remember sitting in on a career workshop held for my former university's students by the student media group's alumni association. In it, one of the hiring managers told the students not to go anywhere near Gannett.

I heard so many horror stories from the broadcast side in addition to the ones I hear from the print side that it gives me pause to even consider Gannett.

Long story short: Yes, it really is that bad.

 

If you're talking about a writing/photo position and the money bump is at least 20 percent, jump at it with almost no questions asked.

A lot of what's been said above about Gannett is true, but the bureaucratic crap (I think they left out the part about holding meets to plan meetings, BTW) mostly applies to editors. Yeah, the mainstreaming crap gets silly ("why don't you dig up a Hispanic lesbian in a wheelchair for a quote in your mountain climbing story?) but it doesn't come into play in sports as much as the features department or some metro beats because much of the sports world is naturally stocked with a wide spectrum of ethnic backgrounds.

 

Gannett WAS that bad. In today's climate, with former "good" chains like the Tribune and MediaNews going south, Gannett isn't looking so bad in comparison anymore.

A Gannett's that is hiring is not the worst thing in the world by any stretch.